Juskalian v. Nahigian

Superior Court of Rhode Island

Juskalian v. Nahigian

6 R.I. Dec. 65

CourtSuperior Court of Rhode Island

DecidedJanuary 13, 1930

DocketEq. No. 9429

StatusPublished

This text of 6 R.I. Dec. 65 (Juskalian v. Nahigian) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Juskalian v. Nahigian, 6 R.I. Dec. 65 (R.I. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

WALSH, J.

This is a petition to establish a mechanic’s lien. The present petitioner was a contractor under oral contract to furnish plumbing and steam fitting to respondent in the 21-apartment house at 23 Tobey Street, Providence, upon a cost plus 10 per cent basis. There is no itemized account of work, labor and materials furnished either in -the commencement of process or upon hearing before us. The proof introduced was fragmentary, conjectural and indefinite. The sums claimed were not agreed upon or fixed hut must have been the result of computation. The elements of this computation were the subject of an account which should have been given. The number of days’ work, when performed, material delivered, price or prices charged should appear.

McPherson vs. Greenwell, 27 R. I. 178.

The petition and proof do not set forth the particulars of the complainant’s demand as required by statute.

Petition denied and dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WALSH, J.

This is a petition to establish a mechanic’s lien. The present petitioner was a contractor under oral contract to furnish plumbing and steam fitting to respondent in the 21-apartment house at 23 Tobey Street, Providence, upon a cost plus 10 per cent basis. There is no itemized account of work, labor and materials furnished either in -the commencement of process or upon hearing before us. The proof introduced was fragmentary, conjectural and indefinite. The sums claimed were not agreed upon or fixed hut must have been the result of computation. The elements of this computation were the subject of an account which should have been given. The number of days’ work, when performed, material delivered, price or prices charged should appear.

McPherson vs. Greenwell, 27 R. I. 178.

The petition and proof do not set forth the particulars of the complainant’s demand as required by statute.

Petition denied and dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 R.I. Dec. 65, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/juskalian-v-nahigian-risuperct-1930.